Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Anal Sex: Love or Harm?

By Julio
Severo

A
very common argument against anal sex among homosexuals is that there are a
number of health risks involved. These risks are presented by Christian pastors
and pro-family leaders as a powerful reason to discourage people from
homosexual anal sex.

The
risks are real and true, but not limited to homosexuals. Any individual
engaging in anal sex runs the same risks. A woman, married or not, who receives
anally a man’s penis is so vulnerable to these risks as a homosexual.

In
her book “Sexual Sabotage” (WND Books, 2010), American-Jewish author Judith A.
Reisman, addressing what she labeled varied deviant behaviors, quotes that “11%
of married individuals participate in anal sodomy at least once.” This
percentage probably is much lesser, because, as Reisman makes it clear, its
source, the Kinsey Institute, exaggerates in its sexual claims and inflates its
sexual numbers. This institute is notorious for its blatant advocacy of
homosexual acts and behavior.

Exaggeratedly,
only 11 percent married women have engaged in anal sex at least once.

Probably,
the Christian married men who require their wives to submit to this kind of sex
are silent in the church and in their Christian testimony about risk factors of
anal sex for homosexuals. They are right about their silence. After all, what
is the point for married men who do it to condemn it among homosexuals if the
risks are just the same for non-homosexuals?

In
both cases, they are involved in sodomy,
which, according to the Macmillan English Dictionary (2nd Edition, 2007), is
defined as “a sexual act in which a man puts his penis into another person’s
anus.”

So anal sex, by homosexuals or not, is sodomy.

There
is a number of health risks with anal sex, and anal intercourse is the riskiest
form of sexual activity for several reasons, including the following:

·Unlike
the vagina, the tissues of the anus are not stretchy. This means that the anus
can easily tear, which puts the receiving partner in danger of anal abscesses,
hemorrhoids, or fissures (a very large tear). Penetration can tear the tissue
inside the anus, allowing bacteria and viruses to enter the bloodstream. The
fragile nature of the anal tissue makes it easier for STDs and bacteria to
enter into the bloodstream. A very tiny tear may provoke, among many other
bacterial infections, infective endocarditis, by taking fecal bacteria through
the bloodstream into heart valves.

·The
tissue inside the anus is not as well protected as the skin
outside the anus. Our external tissue has layers of dead cells that serve as a
protective barrier against infection. The tissue inside the anus does not have
this natural protection, which leaves it vulnerable to tearing and the spread
of infection.

·The
anus was designed to hold in feces. The anus is surrounded with a ring-like
muscle, called the anal sphincter, which tightens after we defecate. When the
muscle is tight, anal penetration can be painful and difficult. Repetitive anal
sex may lead to weakening of the anal
sphincter, making it difficult to hold in feces until you can get to the
toilet.

·The
anus is full of bacteria. Even if both partners do not have a
sexually-transmitted infection or disease, bacteria normally in the anus can
potentially infect the giving partner. Practicing vaginal sex after anal sex
can also lead to vaginal and urinary
tract infections.

Anal
sex can carry other risks as well. Oral contact with the anus can put both
partners at risk for hepatitis, herpes,
HPV, and other infections. For heterosexual couples, pregnancy can occur if semen is deposited near the opening to
the vagina.

Even
though serious injury from anal sex is not common, it can occur. Bleeding after
anal sex could be due to a hemorrhoid or tear, or something more serious
such as a perforation (hole) in the colon. This is a dangerous problem that
requires immediate medical attention. Treatment involves a hospital stay,
surgery, and antibiotics to prevent infection.

Dr.
Stephen Goldstone, an open homosexual and author of “The Ins and Outs of Gay
Sex: A Medical Handbook for Men” (Dell: New York, 1999), said
in his book,

“Just as your
internal sphincter muscle involuntarily relaxes when feces enter your rectum,
it involuntarily contracts when a penis or other object attempts to enter from
the outside…An anal tear can occur during the initial phase of anal sex
precisely because your partner pushes his penis through a closed sphincter.
Think of his penis as a battering ram, one for which your internal sphincter is
no match.”

Dr.
Goldstone is an Assistant Clinical Professor of Surgery at The Mount Sinai
School of Medicine and an expert on “gay men’s health” and “anorectal
disorders.”

“It is very damaging to your health
and quite possibly life threatening.”

“Anal sex is clearly a dangerous
form of sexual activity.”

According
to Dr. David Delvin, of NetDoctor, “Anal (rectal) sex used to be referred to in
English law as ‘the crime against Nature,’ and this alarming term is still used
in the legal statutes of about nine American states. Anal sex has always been a
highly controversial subject, and the controversy that surrounds it looks set
to continue for years to come because evidence is accumulating that this
practice may sometimes lead to anal cancer.”

He
also says:

The American Cancer Society states
that having anal sex is a risk factor for anal cancer in both men and women.

Our impression is that during the
21st century anal sex has become more common in heterosexual couples, partly
because they have watched porn in which this activity so
frequently occurs.

One small study carried out in 2009
suggested that in the UK, around 30 per cent of pornographic DVDs feature
rectal intercourse. Often, it is presented as something that is both routine
and painless for women. In real life, this is not the case. Anal intercourse is
often very painful for women, particularly the first few times.

Many
point that because the Bible is silent on anal sex, it is allowed. Yet, the
Bible is also silent on a number of today’s important issues, including pot and
cocaine. So are they allowed too? Of course, they are not, and the critics are
fast to emphasize the health risks of drug use, but many are very slow to
recognize that a man and a woman engaging in anal sex run the same health risks
as two men engaged in the same sexual activity.

Let
us see the Bible “silence”:

“Let marriage be held in honor among all,
and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral
and adulterous.” (Hebrews 13:4 ESV)

This
verse implies that, besides adultery, the marriage be can be defiled by an unspecified
number of immoral acts, making clear that God is going to judge those who
defile their marriage beds.

God
is not silent also in this instruction:

“For this is the will of God, your
sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you
know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of
lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; that no one transgress and wrong
his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things,
as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. For God has not called us
for impurity, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards
not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 ESV)

About “that
each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,” the
Expanded Bible (published by Thomas
Nelson) says this passage can also be put
this way: “He
wants each of you to learn to live with your own wife in a way that is holy and
honorable.”

About “that
no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter,” the Expanded Bible
says this passage can also be put this way: “Do not exploit or take
advantage of your sister” in this sexual matter.

Is
there exploitation in regard to anal sex? Some years ago, a prominent Brazilian
lawyer told me that she had divorced wives from their husbands, who were evangelical
ministers. The women were suffering anal and other anus-related ills and, to
avoid the causes by their insistent and uncooperative husbands, chose divorce.
How many women, unwilling to sacrifice their marriages, sacrifice their health
to satisfy the anal lusts of their husbands? This lust, with his aftermath on
the health of Christian women, seems a major silent problem in the church today
— more silent than the alleged silence
of the Bible on the issue.

Even
though the First Command of our hedonist culture is ENJOY SEX, God’s First
Command, which includes pleasure, has other priority.

Married
people engaged in anal sex are not collaborating with God’s First Command to
the first married couple: Increase and multiply. Vagina and uterus are proper
channels to increase and multiply and bring babies. An anus has nothing to do
with this command. Anal sex brings diseases, health problems and no babies. So
husbands are cooperating against this command when they choose the wrong channel
and potentially harm their wives’ health.

Besides,
because a Christian’s body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, lovers of anal sex
should face the reality that this sexual activity can damage this temple. Yet,
if they do not want reasons from the Bible, there are abundant medical reasons
to avoid this activity and focus on the proper sexual channel created, planned
and blessed by God.

If
they do not want to give attention to common sense in God’s Word, by appealing
to a supposed “silence,” the megaphone of medicine shouts in their ears the
consequences of sodomy.

Perhaps
the 11 percent of the married people, according to the inflated numbers of the deceptive
Kinsey Institute, do not care about health risks in sodomy, but the 90 percent
deserve to know them.

If
homosexuals deserve to be warned about the health risks of sodomy, why should Christian
wives and their husbands be deprived of it?

With
information from NetDoctor, Medical Institute for Sexual Health, Peter LaBarbera and WebMD.

Thursday, August 18, 2016

Top Anti-Russia Journalist Presents a Dossier
Suggesting Trump May Be a Russian Agent

By Julio
Severo

Anti-Russia
activists had a powerful argument 30 years ago. There was the Soviet Union,
ruled by ruthless communist dictators, and there was a democratic America ruled
by conservative evangelical Ronald Reagan, who prized freedom and Christian
values. While the Soviet Union praised atheism, Reagan did exactly the contrary
by proclaiming 1983 as the “Year of the Bible.”

Donald Trump

Reagan,
who said that the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire, defeated it through the
Bible and strategic and intelligent diplomacy.

Today,
the Soviet Union does not exist anymore, Russia is more conservative and prizes
its Orthodox Christianity and America, which is the largest Protestant nation
in the world, is less conservative and less Christian. Today, America has no
Reagan, but just a Kenyan-born, crypto-Islamic and open homosexualist
president, who cannot be exposed by his deceptions and socialism because any
criticism of him is treated as “racism.”

So 30
years ago are gone and Russia and America have changed. But anti-Russia
activists have not followed these changes. They remain tucked in the Cold War
mentality.

In a
recent report
titled “Is Trump a Russian agent? Top Kremlinologist presents a
tantalising and disturbing dossier on why the presidential hopeful could have
closer links to the Kremlin than it may appear,” DailyMail listed a number of
reasons why top anti-Russia journalist Edward Lucas thinks that Russia is the
biggest threat and why U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump might be a
“Russian agent.”

Months
ago, I was wondering why anti-Russia activists in Brazil were not accusing
Trump of being a KGB agent. I addressed their inconsistency in my article “Is
Trump a KGB Agent?”

I do
not need to wonder anymore. Lucas asked and answered, “‘Is Donald Trump a Russian
agent?’ While the answer may be no, he is certainly what the original Soviet
leader Lenin called a ‘useful idiot’ — referring to those in the West who
ignored mass murder and chose to support the great Communist project.”

By
this question and answer, a reader would understand that Lucas sees Russia as
communist and he wants an anticommunist American candidate to fight Russia. Of
course, Trump is not his candidate.

Then
he complains, “Russian spies have also broken into computers related to the
Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton four times, stealing a trove of documents
that cast an unflattering light on the party’s internal machinations. They
have also gained access to the emails of Mrs Clinton…”

So “communists” (in his Cold War
mentality) gained access to the emails of Mrs Clinton. So is she an
anticommunist? Is she against the progressive and socialist ideology? Is she
against abortion and sodomy, which are a top priority of the progressive and
socialist ideology?

In
his book “God and Hillary Clinton,” published by HarperCollins, conservative author
Paul Kengor portrays Clinton as a progressive Methodist. Progressive is another
term for socialist.

Why then does Lucas see “communism”
in Russia, but he does not see it in Clinton?

To
confirm his anti-Russia bias, Lucas mentions that “former CIA boss Michael
Morell said that he had ‘no doubt’ Putin viewed Trump as an ‘unwitting agent.’”
Yet, he
does not mention that Morell praises Muslims in CIA, especially a
Muslim who for ten years, under Bush and Obama, was director of the CIA’s
Counterterrorism Center. He does not also mention that Morell is endorsing
Hillary.

So to fight “communism” in Russia
anti-Russia activists are supposed to praise Muslims in CIA and endorse
socialist Hillary, who is actively pro-abortion and pro-sodomy?

To prove Trump’s “Soviet” ties,
Edward Lucas presents a list of economic ventures between Russians and Trump
over the years. He points how Trump is receiving Russian money. He does not
seem to care that these were capitalist ventures — highly hated by real
communists. He does not seem to care about the reality. Trump is not poor. He
is a billionaire. He does not need money from anyone. If he is receiving money
from Russian for capitalist ventures, he is just showing that he is a
capitalist, and Russians are equally showing that they are also capitalists!

Even so,
citing the Washington Post, Lucas said, “Since the 1980s, Trump and his family
members have made numerous trips to Moscow in search of business opportunities,
and they have relied on Russian investors to buy their properties around the
world.”

He
also said, “Trump’s son, Donald Jnr, boasted to a property industry conference
in 2008: ‘Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of
our assets.’ In the same speech, he said that he had visited Russia six times
in the previous 18 months.”

His
anti-Trump criticism is laced with a number of mentions of “Soviets,” “KGB” and
other Cold War adjectives.

His
profoundly negative dossier, as mentioned in DailyMail to denounce Trump and
his “Soviet” ties, was written to torpedo Trump’s presidential campaign and
help Hillary.

Lucas
is bitterly critical of Trump because, as he said, “Trump is friendly to Russia.”

He
complains, “Another damning factor in Trump’s relations with Russia is the
composition of his inner circle. Paul Manafort, his election campaign
chairman, has benefited from multi-million-dollar business deals with
pro-Russian oligarchs. He was a close adviser to Viktor Yanukovych, the
disgraced Ukrainian president who was toppled in 2014.”

Lucas fails to mention that the
democratically-elect Yanukovych was overthrown by a revolution backed by the
leftist billionaire George Soros, Obama and his leftist administration and many
prominent neocons. U.S.
conservatives denounced this coup. So if Manafort, the Trump campaign
chairman, was on Yanukovych’ side, he was against Obama and his neocons. Is
this so bad for Lucas?

Obama,
Soros and neocons wanted a Ukraine open to the sodomy agenda. Does Lucas think
that this is ok? I do not know Manafort’s reasons to be against the Ukrainian
coup, but he was right.

Lucas
also complains about other members of Trump’s inner circle, “Even more
startling is the behaviour of one of America’s top spymasters, General Michael
Flynn, who now advises Donald Trump. A former head of the Pentagon’s in-house
intelligence service, the Defence Intelligence Agency, the wiry, crop-haired
spy chief stunned his former colleagues by visiting Moscow in December 2015,
where he sat close to Mr Putin at a dinner… Another foreign policy adviser in
the Trump campaign is Carter Page, who has spent much of his career in Russia… He
justifies Russia’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine, dismissing that
country’s pro-democracy revolution and pro-Western leadership.”

According
to Lucas, Trump is qualified to be a “Russian agent,” not a U.S. president. He
said,

When Mr Putin
wrote an article lambasting America’s role as the world’s policeman, Trump
called it a masterpiece.

In 2007, he
praised Putin for rebuilding Russia.

A year later he
added, in a reference to the then President: “He does his work well; much
better than our [President George W.] Bush.”

Trump praises
the taciturn former KGB man who runs Russia for his leadership.

Then
Lucas says, “What the Russian leader wants to do is to help him — notably by
undermining Mrs Clinton, the only person who can keep Trump out of the White
House.”

Hillary
is the only person also who can keep homosexuality as top priority in the U.S.
foreign policy, which she, under Obama, had been doing as State Secretary.

There
were also many dealings between Hillary, when she was the U.S. State Secretary,
and Russia. But perhaps Lucas favors Hillary because after the Obama
administration began its sanctions against Russia over a Russian law banning
homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents, the dealings stopped. But
Trump has never stopped his efforts of friendship with Russia.

What
is worrying and enraging Lucas is not the U.S. and its recent socialist
administration, which has put homosexuality as top priority in their foreign
policies, including imposing the homosexual doctrine on other nations. They
even tried to force Russia to submit to it.

What
is worrying and enraging Lucas is the prospect of a Trump administration
seeking friendlier relations with the current conservative and Orthodox
Christian Russia.

I do
not know if Trump will survive the onslaught of criticism and pressure from
neocons, left-wing Hillary Clinton and other anti-Russia activists as Edward
Lucas, but if the times have changed, and Russia and America have changed,
Trump is a fresh air away from the moldy Cold War atmosphere.

I
would like Trump to get also a fresh air away from the moldy gay ideology
atmosphere. In this point, he could learn a lot from Russia.

Weak-minded
simple people could equate anti-Russian views with anti-communism, but this is
far away from reality.

The
Americans were under threat from feminist, homosexualist and left-wing
Americans, who wanted the U.S. State Department to investigate them for
violating the sanctions the Obama administration was imposing on Russia.

No, these were not anticommunist
Americans threatening “communist” Americans visiting “communist” Russians in
Moscow. These were socialist Americans threatening pro-family Americans who
were visiting pro-family Russians in Moscow.

Edward Lucas and other anti-Russia
activists do not stop to think that if their case against Russia is over
communism, why support Hillary Clinton, whose policies are more socialist (including
a strident abortion and sodomy advocacy) than the modern Russia? If they cared
about socialism, they would admit that socialists are in the White House and
that these socialists are against Russia.

This
is about nationalism, which is strongly anti-Russia among conservative and
socialist Americans, but it is not strongly anti-Islam, and Donald Trump is radically
changing the ideological nationalistic landscape shared equally by conservative
and leftist Americans. Neocons, whose radical nationalism dominates the
conservative and socialist camps in America, are avid anti-Russia troublemakers
and warmongers.

If anti-Russia activists need a
candidate to keep the Obama sanctions against Russia, Trump is not their
candidate. Hillary is. But just remember: both Hillary and Obama are
socialists!

The
simple message seems to be: to be an American communist is OK, but it is not OK
to be a capitalist or communist Russian.

Another
message seems to be: It is OK to be Muslim, but is not OK to be Russian.

Therefore, the ideological fight
against Russia today is about irrational nationalism, not rational anticommunism.
I am anti-communism, anti-socialism and anti-leftism, and this is the reason I
am against Obama and Hillary. This is the reason I supported Reagan and opposed
the Soviet Union. In that time, I contacted the U.S. Embassy in Brazil
expressing my support to Reagan, and I sent encouraging letters to Christian
prisoners in Soviet camps.

As a
pro-family activist, my reason to support Russia today is its incomparable law
banning homosexual propaganda to children and adolescents. This reason also
includes the fact that Russia has been defending traditional values in the
United Nations. But pro-family values do not seem the reason Trump has been the
biggest American cheerleader for Russia. Trump’s reason seems exclusively
capitalist or economic: Russia has been a very good partner for his capitalist
ventures.

If embracing
capitalist ventures makes you a capitalist, what is hindering Lucas from seeing
Russia as capitalist? And if endorsing an avid supporter (Hillary) of a very socialist
gay and abortion agenda makes you a socialist, should Lucas be spared?

So
Lucas shares more ideological interests with socialists than Trump does.

The
accusation of anti-Russian activists that Trump is receiving Russian money because
he needs it to fund his presidential campaign is ridiculous because Trump is
not poor. He is a billionaire, and he makes business with anyone, Russian or
not.

In the Cold War days, you were a
Russian agent if you advocated socialist interests. Now if you do not support socialist
Hillary Clinton and her abortion and sodomy agenda, you are a Russian agent too!

If it is important for America to make
sodomy a priority and massively impose it on other nations, it is equally
important for conservative Christians to support nations resisting this stupid
imposition.

The Cold War does not exist
anymore, but its moldy mentality is making its adherents crazy and irrational
in regard to what is more important for pro-Reagan conservative Christians:
conservative and Christian values.

The
only thing worrying me is not neocons’ obsessions or anti-Russia concerns. It
is the gay agenda and what it does to persecute Christians, deface families,
destroy children’s innocence and demolish society. Hillary is sure to aggravate
the homosexualist threats against Christians and families. And what about Trump,
what is he going to do?

Trump
is better than Hillary in many respects, but in the homosexualist respect, he
needs to listen and imitate Russia exactly as Russia should have listened and
imitated Reagan’s America 30 years ago.

Monday, August 15, 2016

Brazilian State Legislature
of Pernambuco Establishes Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the Inquisition

By José
Roitberg

The Sephardic Association in Pernambuco,
Brazil, announces that state Law 15.871 has been enacted. Authored by State
Representative Joel da Harpa (PTN-PE), it establishes in the official calendar
in the state of Pernambuco March 31st as Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the
Inquisition.

This was a historic victory, which will
honor our Jewish ancestors who were victims for more than 300 years of
religious persecution in Brazil.

Law of Memorial Day of Jewish Victims of the Inquisition

“May this day be a landmark in our
history, and may we annually remember Sephardic Jews who came to Pernambuco and
here built their families and, resiliently, resisted all kinds of oppression,
remaking a different way of keeping themselves Jews (through Crypto-Judaism),
and making possible for us today to recover our roots! And may this day be also
a day to fight all forms of religious intolerance.”

To know more about the subject, we
recommend the Museum of the History of the Inquisition (www.museudainquisicao.org.br) and
to watch our full report on this museum in Brazil on YouTube.

Donald
Trump has become a pawn of Russian President Vladimir Putin, presenting
“dangers” to American national security that would only grow if he obtains the
White House, said a former CIA director who also explained that Muslims do not
present dangers to America.

Michael
Morell, a CIA officer under Republican President Bush and Democratic President
Obama, said Friday in a New York Times op-ed that he
is endorsing Hillary Clinton in the presidential race because she is “highly
qualified” and Trump is not.

And
if you ask why the U.S. has experienced remarkable failure in its war against
terror, Morell unintentionally explains it in his praise of a Muslim serving as
the director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center. He said that the Center was
directed by this Muslim for nearly a decade, during the presidency of Bush and
Obama. Morell said that he cannot name the director of this CIA agency, but he
highly praises him as the Muslim “most responsible for keeping America safe
since the Sept. 11 attacks.”

If in
the War against Terror (and this is Islamic terror) CIA has an Islamic director
to fight Islamic terror, what had CIA in the Cold War? A Soviet Russian
director in the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center? Sorry, but it is very hard not
get a fit of laughter over CIA and its blunders. “Get Smart” is smarter than
this.

“Mr.
Trump has taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American,
interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting
Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian
invasion of the Baltic States,” Morell writes.

Trump
has responded in kind and called Putin a “great leader,” he said.

Trump
is “damaging our national security,” he argues, and he’s fraternizing with
Putin.

Morell
warned in the op-ed that Putin, who has been accused by the Obama
administration of killing and jailing journalists and political opponents, is
manipulating Trump, who has not cared about what Putin has done in Russia,
while Morell has not cared about what Muslims have done in America. Only in the
9/11 terrorist attack, approximately 3,000 Americans were killed. Even so,
Muslims occupy high-ranking posts in CIA. What about if Russians had been
responsible for the 9/11 attack? Would Morell warmly welcome a Soviet Russian
as CIA director? Would he praise Soviet Russians in high-ranking posts in CIA?
So why is he praising Muslims in CIA?

In
spite of the fact that the greatest threat today is Islam, Trump has been
heavily criticized by right-wing and left-wing Americans for wanting friendly
relations with Putin and Russians and for not wanting such relations with
Muslims.

U.S.
nationalistic interests, supported by both right-wing and left-wing Americans,
see Islam as an ally and Russia, which is the largest Orthodox Christian nation
in the world, as eternal enemy.

It is
a suicidal nationalism that embraces Muslims as allies. Allies against whom?
Russia.

Right-wing
and left-wing Americans are united in an anti-Russia nationalistic fanaticism
that is willing to embrace Islam and its adherents.

How
exactly, according to Morell, is Hillary “highly qualified” and Trump is
not?

Morell’s
support of Hillary is in
harmony with CIA’s politics. Former CIA agent Osama bin Laden
created al-Qaeda in the late 1970s to unite Muslims in Afghanistan against Soviet
Union. Why does Morell think other Muslim agents in high-ranking posts in CIA
could not imitate bin Laden?

In
the WND report “Declassified
docs: Hillary aided rise of ISIS,” Jerome R. Corsi said, “More than
100 pages of previously classified Department of Defense and Department of
State documents implicate the Obama administration in a cover-up to obscure the
role Hillary Clinton and the State Department played in the rise of ISIS.” The
report mentions shipments of weapons to ISIS.

Another
WND report says that CIA has directly been delivering weapons to Syrian Muslim
rebels. Many of these rebels, who have connections to al-Qaeda and ISIS, have
been raping, torturing and slaughtering multitudes of Orthodox Christians in Syria.

Certainly,
Hillary is “highly qualified” to support Islamists against Christians. In
contrast, Trump is highly qualified to support Orthodox Christian Russia
against Islamists.

So
why are right-wing and left-wing Americans willing to go along with Islam, not
Russia?

Why
are these Americans, including CIA directors, warmongers against Russia, but
not warmongers against Islam? Why are they very comfortable with Islam and its
adherents, but not comfortable with an Orthodox Christian Russia?

Because
Trump is going along with Russia, not Islam, they are indignant.

So
America had a Muslim as director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center for ten
years. Now she has Muslim John Brennan as CIA director. And she is besieged by
Islamic terror. And what is the concern of right-wing and left-wing Americans? Russia!

Michael
Morell wants a Trump against Russia, not against Islam. And because Trump does
not fit his neocon mentality, Morell prefers endorsing Hillary, who has proven
her high qualities by helping ISIS and supporting the Obama boycotts and
sanctions against Russia over a Russian law banning homosexual propaganda to
children and adolescents, even though the official excuse by the Obama
administration is that Russia annexed Crimea, which for centuries belonged to
Russia.

When
he was asked on ABC whether he would support the Crimea annexation, Trump said:
“I’m going to take a look at it. But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what
I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”

In
the time of Soviet Union, it made sense to fight this evil empire. This is why
I fervently supported Ronald Reagan in that time. But Soviet Union is 25 years gone
and the greatest threat today is Islam and it makes sense now to support an
American candidate against Islam. Trump is such man. Trump challenges the
nationalistic paradigms that favor Islam against Russia.

Americans
who endorse Hillary do not care about Christians being raped, tortured and
slaughtered by ISIS and other Islamic groups supported by her. Certainly, the
Muslim director of the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center did not care. And does
current Muslim CIA director care?

Trump’s
campaign dismissed Morell’s criticism, linking the ex-CIA director to the Obama
administration’s public response defending Hillary after the September 2012 Islamic
attacks in Benghazi, Libya. Obama administration officials tried to play down
the role of Islamist militants in the attacks.

Alongside
the video was a statement that said: “We don’t know why Trump and Putin praise
each other so much and share many foreign policies. We’ll let you guess.”

With
his vast experience as a former CIA director, Morell is resolute and he
promised, “On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I
will do everything I can to ensure that she is elected as our 45th president.”

He
will be not alone. If Hillary intends to support Islam, keep the Obama sanctions
against Russia and promote abortion and sodomy ideologies, she has already a major
ally: The Communist
Party USA, which officially nominated Hillary Rodham Clinton as their
undisputed candidate for president of the United States.

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

A Trap for Trump

Democrats use Muslim to ruin Trump’s candidacy

By Julio
Severo

A
perfect trap was set for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. His
Democratic socialist opponent Hillary Clinton put in the Democratic National
Convention last week Khizr Khan, a Muslim speaker, who viciously attacked
Trump.

Hillary
is not a match for Trump. This is why she needed to resort to a low trick. While
Trump brought Peter Thiel, a Republican homosexual, to give a speech
at the Republican National Convention to offend conservative Christians by
saying that he is proud about his homosexuality, Hillary brought a Muslim to offend
Trump by saying that he is proud about Islam.

In
Khizr Khan he has finally met his match. In the convention, Khan said, “If it
was up to Donald Trump he never would have been in America,” in reference to his
dead son and Trump’s plans to ban non-American Muslims from the United States.

All
the U.S. conservative and leftist media is attacking for days Trump, because Khan’s
main argument was that his son, a captain in the U.S. Army, was killed in
combat in the Iraq War in 2004. Hillary called the late soldier “the best of
America.”

Democrats
and Republicans are attacking Trump.

Socialists
and conservatives are attacking Trump.

“I
don’t know where the bottom is,” sneered Hillary, rejoicing that at last Trump
was ensnared.

But
the real bottom, said liberal journalist Piers Morgan addressing Hillary, “It’s
using grieving parents who lost their son in an illegal, unethical, immoral war
that YOU voted for, as a political weapon.”

The
Iraq War that killed Khan’s son was approved by then Senator Hillary Clinton,
who now uses Khan to attack Trump.

Morgan
said about this war, “This was one of the biggest mistakes made in the history
of modern America.”

Both
George W. Bush and Hillary approved it. From a Christian and humanitarian perspective,
this war was a total disaster for Christians.

Before
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were over 2 million Christians. Today, they
number 300,000. The U.S. military presence in Iraq did not protect Christians
and even after the genocide, the U.S. has massively opened its immigration
doors to Muslims, not their Christian victims.

The
ten Islamic terrorists who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 were not from Iraq. They
were from Saudi Arabia. Why did not the U.S. invade and attack Saudi Arabia,
which is, in fact, the biggest sponsor of worldwide Islamic terrorism?

In no
way Khizr Khan is an innocent “American” patriot. According to WND (WorldNetDaily),
he “has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international
Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the
wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration
programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the
United States—and has deep ties to the Clinton Foundation.”

Now,
Khan has deleted
his law firm website that specialized in Islamic immigration to the U.S. to try
to hide his dark secrets. He was being paid to bring more and more Muslims to
the U.S.

But
the American public is so blind about the Islamic reality, especially when
covered up by a supposed American patriotism, that they are attacking Trump.

Veterans
of Foreign Wars, which was praising Trump, now attacks him and defends Khan.

Arizona
Senator John McCain, who was a Republican presidential candidate in the 2008
election and a hawkish neocon who helped stir a revolution in Ukraine against
Russia, told Khizr Khan, “thank you for immigrating to America,” while
expressing how much he disagrees with Trump over his call to ban non-American
Muslims from entering the United States.

House
Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican Catholic, also rebuked Trump, saying a “religious
test for entering our country is no reflection” of American values. He does not
know the history of his country! Actually, when America had such tests in the
time of her founders, she was better and more Christian. Now she does not know
what she is.

Trump
tried to react to the massive attacks, which essentially defended Khan and his
Islamic ideology, saying: “This story is not about Mr. Khan, who is all over
the place doing interviews, but rather RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM and the U.S.
Get smart!”

But
it was to no avail. Everybody are united with Khan and against Trump.
Conservatives, liberals, hard-core Marxists, hawkish neocons. Everybody.

Trump
saw rightly. This is about Islam. While he was facing an Islamic trap set by Hillary,
Pope Francis was saying, “It’s not true and it’s not correct (to say) Islam is
terrorism.” But he did not face the massive hurricane of criticism Trump did.

The
pope added: “I believe that in every religion there is always a little
fundamentalist group. I don’t like to talk of Islamic violence because every
day, when I go through the newspapers, I see violence, this man who kills his
girlfriend, another who kills his mother-in-law. And these are baptized
Catholics. If I speak of Islamic violence, then I have to speak of Catholic
violence.”

As
for the Islamic State group, he said it “presents itself with a violent
identity card, but that’s not Islam.”

The
European and U.S. media have not attacked the pope for such remarks. Hillary,
Obama, John McCain and hawkish neocons have not attacked the pope for such
remarks.

But
all of them want Trump to soften his stance on Islam. And all of them want him
to harden his stance on Russia.

After
the daily, relentless attacks by all of them using Khan against Trump’s hard
stance on Islam, they are now targeting his “soft” stance on Russia. Besieged
by all sides by a powerful media hurricane supporting Khan, Trump seems to be
willing to make some sacrifices and backtrack on Russia for the sake of Khan
and Islam.

The whole
media is attacking him over Russia. When he was asked on ABC whether he would
support the Crimea annexation, Trump said: “I’m going to take a look at it.
But, you know, the people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with
Russia than where they were.”

Most
of Crimea is populated with ethnic Russians. But, for geopolitical interests
and neocons’ ambitions, the Obama administration has refused to recognize the
legitimacy of Russian referendums in Crimea.

Trump,
though, suggested the U.S. should accept Russia’s annexation if it would lead
to better relations with Russia and stronger cooperation in fighting ISIS
militants.

Obama
imposed economic sanctions against Russia for annexing Crimea two years ago.
But according Dr.
Scott Lively, this was a pretext. Actually, Obama provoked and used
the Ukrainian chaos to chastise Russia for defying his homosexual imperialism.

The
United Nations also doesn’t recognize Crimea as part of Russia, and some top hawkish
Republicans staunchly defend the U.S. geopolitical interests in Crimea against
what they consider Russian “aggression,” when in reality there was no aggression.

Under
Trump, the Republican Party platform softened a stance on military involvement
in Ukraine. Although the platform is not pro-Russia, Trump supporters succeeded
in preventing a neocon reference to arming Ukraine from being added.

Many
in the U.S., in the conservative and leftist camps, are displeased by his focus
on Islam, not Russia. Neocons are working hard to change his focus. And the Khizr
Khan case is helping both camps.

In a
searing denouncement on defense of Khan, President Obama castigated Trump as “unfit”
and “woefully unprepared” to serve in the White House. He challenged
Republicans to withdraw their support for their presidential candidate,
declaring “There has to come a point at which you say ‘enough.’”

“I
think the Republican nominee is unfit to serve as president,” said Obama, who
noted his opposition to Trump replacing him goes beyond policy differences with
his 2008 and 2012 opponents, John McCain and Mitt Romney.

“I
didn’t have a doubt that they could function as president,” he said. “I think I
was right and Mitt Romney and John McCain were wrong on certain policy issues,
but I never thought that they couldn’t do the job.”

If
the U.S. is to have a Republican president, Obama supports Romney or McCain.
Trump, never.

If Khan
were Russian, Obama, McCain, Romney, the whole Democratic Party, the whole
Republican Party and the whole (liberal and conservative) media would be
supporting Trump. But he is Muslim, and this grants him special privileges.

Definitely,
it was not cool for Hillary to use Khan to provoke Trump. And it was not cool
for Trump to let the Republican Party and his staff use Thiel to provoke
conservative Christians.

While
neocons want everybody worried and panicked over Russia, so that they may keep
profiting from arm trade and wars, it is Islam that is showing a formidable
capability of defeating Trump through democratic weapons used by liberals and misguided
or false conservatives and blind patriots.

If
Trump does not follow neocons’ interests, they will have everybody worried and
panicked over him. From Hillary’s trap to neocons’ trap.

They
want him to make certain sacrifices. Russia will be one of them. Islam? Never.